Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 212066; Published
Judges Zahra, Kelly, and McDonald; 2-1 (with Judge Zahra dissenting); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 241 Mich App 313; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Benefits in Motorcycle Accidents
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published Opinion by Judge McDonald, Judge Zahra dissenting, the Court of Appeals held that the language of an "other owned vehicle" exclusion contained in the uninsured motorist section of the applicable insurance policy did not preclude coverage because the term "motor vehicle" as used in the policy was ambiguous as applied to a motorcycle occupied by the insured at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff, while operating his motorcycle, was seriously injured when struck by an uninsured automobile. He received $20,000 of uninsured motorist coverage from the policy on his motorcycle, provided by Midwest Mutual Insurance Company.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff also owned an automobile which was insured with Citizens for $ 100,000 of uninsured motorist coverage.
Citizens refused to provide uninsured motorist benefits under its policy, relying on the "other owned vehicle" exclusion contained in the policy.
The exclusion provided as follows:
"We do not provide uninsured motorist coverage for 'bodily injury 'sustained by an insured:
I. While 'occupying,' or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by you or any 'family member' which is not insured for this coverage under this policy."
Citizens contended that the motorcycle occupied by plaintiff at the time of the accident was a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the "other owned vehicle" exclusion, and that under the language of the exclusion, coverage did not apply.
Plaintiff claimed that under the uninsured motorist coverage provisions of the policy, the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle was set forth as follows:
"However, uninsured motor vehicle does not include any vehicle, trailer or equipment:
7. which is a motorcycle."
Plaintiff claimed that the term "motor vehicle" as contained in the "other owned vehicle" exclusion, was ambiguous, in light of the fact that defendant had chosen to define "uninsured motor vehicle" for purposes of limiting liability in that section of the policy as not including a motorcycle. In upholding plaintiffs claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals held that the other owned vehicle exclusion was ambiguous, inasmuch as it was susceptible of two different interpretations. Exclusionary clauses are to be strictly construed against the insurer. The court further distinguished the case of Bianchi v Automobile Club of Michigan, 437 Mich 65 (1991), which had held that under the policy language in that case, a motorcycle was a motor vehicle. The court held that the language of the policy involved in Bianchi is distinguishable from the language of the policy involved in this case.
In his dissent, Judge Zahra would hold that the policy is unambiguous and that a motorcycle is included within the meaning of the term "motor vehicle" as that term is used throughout the policy. The express exclusion of motorcycles from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" is not dispositive or relevant to the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." Nothing within the definition of the term "uninsured motor vehicle" supports the conclusion that it was also intended to define the meaning of "motor vehicle" as that term is used throughout the policy.
